It was expected if he gained admission, so Bishop O'Dowd RBI's Austin Jones committed to Furd.
Bad luck, Austin

We need to beat Furd this year. Unless we can provide a superior football product, high-academic students will always look at Furd first and us second.

Who is Austin Jones?

ColoradoBear said:

---

Who is Austin Jones?

---

just your typical #4 ranked running back in the country who happens to play high school 11 miles from Memorial at Bishop O'Dowd.

https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/06/29/bng-l-bodstan-0629/

Kinda makes sense since his RB coach was an ex Stanford RB.

Actually, the staff can "flat out recruit" haven't you seen our domino set of 3 stars?

sheki said:

---

Kinda makes sense since his RB coach was an ex Stanford RB.

---

And his future RB coach is a hall of famer, former Cal coach, whom we didnt hire. But hey, Wilcox has been getting all the funds he needs.

Time to flip him before LOI day.

packawana said:

---

We need to beat Furd this year. Unless we can provide a superior football product, high-academic students will always look at Furd first and us second.

---

Yes, we need a better football product to show kids. But I disagree that high-academic students "will always look at Furd first and us second." Just another excuse to use when we get beat in recruiting. I didn't even give Stanford a second thought when I chose Cal. Not EVERY high-academic student will choose them over us.
Cal has plenty to offer to attract students......not everyone likes Stanford. Just sayin'........

Let's be nice. Maybe he doesn't get admitted and then he wants to stick it to them.

CalBarn said:

---

packawana said:

---

We need to beat Furd this year. Unless we can provide a superior football product, high-academic students will always look at Furd first and us second.

---

Yes, we need a better football product to show kids. But I disagree that high-academic students "will always look at Furd first and us second." Just another excuse to use when we get beat in recruiting. I didn't even give Stanford a second thought when I chose Cal. Not EVERY high-academic student will choose them over us.
Cal has plenty to offer to attract students......not everyone likes Stanford. Just sayin'........

---

Let's see. You can go to Cal and play FB, but you better not consider a hard major like Engineering because coupling the two has only worked in a few instances in the last twenty years. Or you can go to 'furd and they believe so much in their admissions screening that once you are in you are just short of guaranteed a 3.5 GPA no matter what you do. You choose. And on and on and on. Granted 'furd is not for everyone, but for an athlete I do believe a $72000 scholarship with tons and tons of in house support sits up there with the best.

Now if you wish to say EVERY, then I would agree. Just sayin'.....Its tough to recruit top academic 4 and 5 star athletes against them, unless that athlete is really more comfortable in the "Cal Way"

What exactly is the "Cal Way"?

Serious question.

I think the key difference is socio-economics. It just isn't clear (and their roster reflects it - and so does ours) that Furd is a good fit for middle-class kids. Just go up to the farm and see all of the BMWs and Audis. Plus the lily white suburbia. If you have not been a middle class (or even upper-middle class kid) in a world of 1%'ers it really is both a culture shock and deeply alienating.

Again (I gotta save this paragraph someplace on my laptop for cut and pasting).....

A key advantage that Furd has is that it is one of the few P5 schools that appeals to the 1%'ers that play football. Look at their roster and how many of their kids graduate from private schools (and how few of ours do). This matters because as the gap between the P5 and the rest of the college football has left Furd (and to a small extent the Domers) in a unique position.

In many ways our recruiting battles are NOT with Furd. They are with UCLA and to an extent U of Washington - large publics located in an urban environment.


PS. USC has really become something of a strange bird. Under Steve Sample USC made such a huge push for affluent foreign students (and of course being located in Watts) that I don't even begin to know how to characterize the experience anymore.

PPS. a decent chunk of the 1%'ers that play football (and basketball) are the KIDS of pro athletes in the post Kurt Flood era.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

What exactly is the "Cal Way"?

Serious question.

---

socaltownie in the next post did a good job of answering, but I would say a more urban setting, less Taco Bell to start---and most all that it implies. A gated community in the OC ('furd) vs. downtown SF or LA. But then I think you really knew and didn't need any of this.

socaltownie said:

---

I think the key difference is socio-economics. It just isn't clear (and their roster reflects it - and so does ours) that Furd is a good fit for middle-class kids. Just go up to the farm and see all of the BMWs and Audis. Plus the lily white suburbia. If you have not been a middle class (or even upper-middle class kid) in a world of 1%'ers it really is both a culture shock and deeply alienating.

Again (I gotta save this paragraph someplace on my laptop for cut and pasting).....

A key advantage that Furd has is that it is one of the few P5 schools that appeals to the 1%'ers that play football. Look at their roster and how many of their kids graduate from private schools (and how few of ours do). This matters because as the gap between the P5 and the rest of the college football has left Furd (and to a small extent the Domers) in a unique position.

In many ways our recruiting battles are NOT with Furd. They are with UCLA and to an extent U of Washington - large publics located in an urban environment.


PS. USC has really become something of a strange bird. Under Steve Sample USC made such a huge push for affluent foreign students (and of course being located in Watts) that I don't even begin to know how to characterize the experience anymore.

PPS. a decent chunk of the 1%'ers that play football (and basketball) are the KIDS of pro athletes in the post Kurt Flood era.

---

Really interesting post. Cal' student body also trends towards upper middle class, but has more the millennial feel of liking urban areas such as the City. I can see where your going re: Furd. That if your a more conservative wealthy kid, and you have a suburban orientation, Furd is very attractive. And it seems this year that are lot more recruiting battles with Furd, but in past, more typically with the state schools, as you point out. I'm not sure where Chip and UCLA are going with such limited offers.

The SC experience is you send you child there to be a business major and get a good job. Over half the undergrads are business majors (and the rest tend to be STEM), and you buy top students with generous financial aide (the benefits of a large endowment). SC typically is rated in the top 5 schools for business recruiters. And those making the Taco Bell comments, don't have a clue about LA real estate. USC dominates the Figueroa corridor (it owns most of the property up to Convention Center/Staples), and has made massive changes. For millennials it is a hot area, or at least so I'm told. I know several Cal alums who have sucked it up because their kid wants the certainty of a business major that Cal can't provide. As an aside, living in SC land, there is a lot of *****ing about recruiting and that SC is unable to compete for more top players these days because the coaching staff is under pressure to recruit players who can matriculate in what now a more competitive school. My wife and I try not laugh.

Your last sentence is telling. My initial reaction was really (?) and then I started looking at Cal and Furd rosters. Good post.

Edit: a word that has a female dog in it (*****!ng) gets censored?

socaltownie said:

---

I think the key difference is socio-economics. It just isn't clear (and their roster reflects it - and so does ours) that Furd is a good fit for middle-class kids. Just go up to the farm and see all of the BMWs and Audis. Plus the lily white suburbia. If you have not been a middle class (or even upper-middle class kid) in a world of 1%'ers it really is both a culture shock and deeply alienating.

Again (I gotta save this paragraph someplace on my laptop for cut and pasting).....

A key advantage that Furd has is that it is one of the few P5 schools that appeals to the 1%'ers that play football. Look at their roster and how many of their kids graduate from private schools (and how few of ours do). This matters because as the gap between the P5 and the rest of the college football has left Furd (and to a small extent the Domers) in a unique position.

In many ways our recruiting battles are NOT with Furd. They are with UCLA and to an extent U of Washington - large publics located in an urban environment.


PS. USC has really become something of a strange bird. Under Steve Sample USC made such a huge push for affluent foreign students (and of course being located in Watts) that I don't even begin to know how to characterize the experience anymore.

PPS. a decent chunk of the 1%'ers that play football (and basketball) are the KIDS of pro athletes in the post Kurt Flood era.

---

I don't know about the "1%ers" assumption. How many of them are there and how many of their kids are that athletic, play football, let alone at a top level? Not that I have overlooked the bias in the 1%ers crack in the first place.

As to private school backgrounds, assuming you're not talking about catholic schools, there are private schools whose business model is the "5th year senior" - kids who are great athletes (mostly fb and bb), but need to get their grades up to gain admission. We used to call them "ringers." Now, we call them "rich." Anyway, I wonder how many of the furd roster's private school kids aren't really children of the "1%"?

Rushinbear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I think the key difference is socio-economics. It just isn't clear (and their roster reflects it - and so does ours) that Furd is a good fit for middle-class kids. Just go up to the farm and see all of the BMWs and Audis. Plus the lily white suburbia. If you have not been a middle class (or even upper-middle class kid) in a world of 1%'ers it really is both a culture shock and deeply alienating.

Again (I gotta save this paragraph someplace on my laptop for cut and pasting).....

A key advantage that Furd has is that it is one of the few P5 schools that appeals to the 1%'ers that play football. Look at their roster and how many of their kids graduate from private schools (and how few of ours do). This matters because as the gap between the P5 and the rest of the college football has left Furd (and to a small extent the Domers) in a unique position.

In many ways our recruiting battles are NOT with Furd. They are with UCLA and to an extent U of Washington - large publics located in an urban environment.


PS. USC has really become something of a strange bird. Under Steve Sample USC made such a huge push for affluent foreign students (and of course being located in Watts) that I don't even begin to know how to characterize the experience anymore.

PPS. a decent chunk of the 1%'ers that play football (and basketball) are the KIDS of pro athletes in the post Kurt Flood era.

---

I don't know about the "1%ers" assumption. How many of them are there and how many of their kids are that athletic, play football, let alone at a top level? Not that I have overlooked the bias in the 1%ers crack in the first place.

As to private school backgrounds, assuming you're not talking about catholic schools, there are private schools whose business model is the "5th year senior" - kids who are great athletes (mostly fb and bb), but need to get their grades up to gain admission. We used to call them "ringers." Now, we call them "rich." Anyway, I wonder how many of the furd roster's private school kids aren't really children of the "1%"?

---

Yep. Let's bring some facts to this discussion. Based on 2014 data, the average household income for a 1%er was $1.26 million/year. I suggest there are not too many of those on the Stanford football roster given the violent nature of the game. The Maverick McNealy's of the world go to Stanford to play golf.....

As this relates to recruiting, there is probably no more than one kid a year who fits the 1%er definition and is being actively recruited by Cal and Stanford.

Forget about them and focus on the non-1% kids who are being recruited by UO, UW and UCLA. Those are the ones who will change the fortunes (pun intended) of the Bears.

71Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I think the key difference is socio-economics. It just isn't clear (and their roster reflects it - and so does ours) that Furd is a good fit for middle-class kids. Just go up to the farm and see all of the BMWs and Audis. Plus the lily white suburbia. If you have not been a middle class (or even upper-middle class kid) in a world of 1%'ers it really is both a culture shock and deeply alienating.

Again (I gotta save this paragraph someplace on my laptop for cut and pasting).....

A key advantage that Furd has is that it is one of the few P5 schools that appeals to the 1%'ers that play football. Look at their roster and how many of their kids graduate from private schools (and how few of ours do). This matters because as the gap between the P5 and the rest of the college football has left Furd (and to a small extent the Domers) in a unique position.

In many ways our recruiting battles are NOT with Furd. They are with UCLA and to an extent U of Washington - large publics located in an urban environment.


PS. USC has really become something of a strange bird. Under Steve Sample USC made such a huge push for affluent foreign students (and of course being located in Watts) that I don't even begin to know how to characterize the experience anymore.

PPS. a decent chunk of the 1%'ers that play football (and basketball) are the KIDS of pro athletes in the post Kurt Flood era.

---

I don't know about the "1%ers" assumption. How many of them are there and how many of their kids are that athletic, play football, let alone at a top level? Not that I have overlooked the bias in the 1%ers crack in the first place.

As to private school backgrounds, assuming you're not talking about catholic schools, there are private schools whose business model is the "5th year senior" - kids who are great athletes (mostly fb and bb), but need to get their grades up to gain admission. We used to call them "ringers." Now, we call them "rich." Anyway, I wonder how many of the furd roster's private school kids aren't really children of the "1%"?

---

Yep. Let's bring some facts to this discussion. Based on 2014 data, the average household income for a 1%er was $1.26 million/year. I suggest there are not too many of those on the Stanford football roster given the violent nature of the game. The Maverick McNealy's of the world go to Stanford to play golf.....

As this relates to recruiting, there is probably no more than one kid a year who fits the 1%er definition and is being actively recruited by Cal and Stanford.

Forget about them and focus on the non-1% kids who are being recruited by UO, UW and UCLA. Those are the ones who will change the fortunes (pun intended) of the Bears.

---

1. I think you are taking one percenter too literally

2. $425k gets you in the top 1 percent. The average figure is irrelevant, especially when you have billionaires and 100millionaires skewing the average income of the group.

wifeisafurd said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I think the key difference is socio-economics. It just isn't clear (and their roster reflects it - and so does ours) that Furd is a good fit for middle-class kids. Just go up to the farm and see all of the BMWs and Audis. Plus the lily white suburbia. If you have not been a middle class (or even upper-middle class kid) in a world of 1%'ers it really is both a culture shock and deeply alienating.

Again (I gotta save this paragraph someplace on my laptop for cut and pasting).....

A key advantage that Furd has is that it is one of the few P5 schools that appeals to the 1%'ers that play football. Look at their roster and how many of their kids graduate from private schools (and how few of ours do). This matters because as the gap between the P5 and the rest of the college football has left Furd (and to a small extent the Domers) in a unique position.

In many ways our recruiting battles are NOT with Furd. They are with UCLA and to an extent U of Washington - large publics located in an urban environment.


PS. USC has really become something of a strange bird. Under Steve Sample USC made such a huge push for affluent foreign students (and of course being located in Watts) that I don't even begin to know how to characterize the experience anymore.

PPS. a decent chunk of the 1%'ers that play football (and basketball) are the KIDS of pro athletes in the post Kurt Flood era.

---

Really interesting post. Cal' student body also trends towards upper middle class, but has more the millennial feel of liking urban areas such as the City. I can see where your going re: Furd. That if your a more conservative wealthy kid, and you have a suburban orientation, Furd is very attractive. And it seems this year that are lot more recruiting battles with Furd, but in past, more typically with the state schools, as you point out. I'm not sure where Chip and UCLA are going with such limited offers.

The SC experience is you send you child there to be a business major and get a good job. Over half the undergrads are business majors (and the rest tend to be STEM), and you buy top students with generous financial aide (the benefits of a large endowment). SC typically is rated in the top 5 schools for business recruiters. And those making the Taco Bell comments, don't have a clue about LA real estate. USC dominates the Figueroa corridor (it owns most of the property up to Convention Center/Staples), and has made massive changes. For millennials it is a hot area, or at least so I'm told. I know several Cal alums who have sucked it up because their kid wants the certainty of a business major that Cal can't provide. As an aside, living in SC land, there is a lot of *****ing about recruiting and that SC is unable to compete for more top players these days because the coaching staff is under pressure to recruit players who can matriculate in what now a more competitive school. My wife and I try not laugh.

Your last sentence is telling. My initial reaction was really (?) and then I started looking at Cal and Furd rosters. Good post.

Edit: a word that has a female dog in it (*****!ng) gets censored?

---

Uh, my Taco Bell reference was to the Palo Alto contingent, not U$C.

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I think the key difference is socio-economics. It just isn't clear (and their roster reflects it - and so does ours) that Furd is a good fit for middle-class kids. Just go up to the farm and see all of the BMWs and Audis. Plus the lily white suburbia. If you have not been a middle class (or even upper-middle class kid) in a world of 1%'ers it really is both a culture shock and deeply alienating.

Again (I gotta save this paragraph someplace on my laptop for cut and pasting).....

A key advantage that Furd has is that it is one of the few P5 schools that appeals to the 1%'ers that play football. Look at their roster and how many of their kids graduate from private schools (and how few of ours do). This matters because as the gap between the P5 and the rest of the college football has left Furd (and to a small extent the Domers) in a unique position.

In many ways our recruiting battles are NOT with Furd. They are with UCLA and to an extent U of Washington - large publics located in an urban environment.


PS. USC has really become something of a strange bird. Under Steve Sample USC made such a huge push for affluent foreign students (and of course being located in Watts) that I don't even begin to know how to characterize the experience anymore.

PPS. a decent chunk of the 1%'ers that play football (and basketball) are the KIDS of pro athletes in the post Kurt Flood era.

---

I don't know about the "1%ers" assumption. How many of them are there and how many of their kids are that athletic, play football, let alone at a top level? Not that I have overlooked the bias in the 1%ers crack in the first place.

As to private school backgrounds, assuming you're not talking about catholic schools, there are private schools whose business model is the "5th year senior" - kids who are great athletes (mostly fb and bb), but need to get their grades up to gain admission. We used to call them "ringers." Now, we call them "rich." Anyway, I wonder how many of the furd roster's private school kids aren't really children of the "1%"?

---

Yep. Let's bring some facts to this discussion. Based on 2014 data, the average household income for a 1%er was $1.26 million/year. I suggest there are not too many of those on the Stanford football roster given the violent nature of the game. The Maverick McNealy's of the world go to Stanford to play golf.....

As this relates to recruiting, there is probably no more than one kid a year who fits the 1%er definition and is being actively recruited by Cal and Stanford.

Forget about them and focus on the non-1% kids who are being recruited by UO, UW and UCLA. Those are the ones who will change the fortunes (pun intended) of the Bears.

---

1. I think you are taking one percenter too literally

2. $425k gets you in the top 1 percent. The average figure is irrelevant, especially when you have billionaires and 100millionaires skewing the average income of the group.

---

Plus, a lot of the African American kids at Stanfurd, they may not come from the top 1% of all families, but they are often in the top 1% (certainly 5%) of African American families. They love the Furd prestige. We have our own prestige, but most consider it less than that of Furd.

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I think the key difference is socio-economics. It just isn't clear (and their roster reflects it - and so does ours) that Furd is a good fit for middle-class kids. Just go up to the farm and see all of the BMWs and Audis. Plus the lily white suburbia. If you have not been a middle class (or even upper-middle class kid) in a world of 1%'ers it really is both a culture shock and deeply alienating.

Again (I gotta save this paragraph someplace on my laptop for cut and pasting).....

A key advantage that Furd has is that it is one of the few P5 schools that appeals to the 1%'ers that play football. Look at their roster and how many of their kids graduate from private schools (and how few of ours do). This matters because as the gap between the P5 and the rest of the college football has left Furd (and to a small extent the Domers) in a unique position.

In many ways our recruiting battles are NOT with Furd. They are with UCLA and to an extent U of Washington - large publics located in an urban environment.


PS. USC has really become something of a strange bird. Under Steve Sample USC made such a huge push for affluent foreign students (and of course being located in Watts) that I don't even begin to know how to characterize the experience anymore.

PPS. a decent chunk of the 1%'ers that play football (and basketball) are the KIDS of pro athletes in the post Kurt Flood era.

---

I don't know about the "1%ers" assumption. How many of them are there and how many of their kids are that athletic, play football, let alone at a top level? Not that I have overlooked the bias in the 1%ers crack in the first place.

As to private school backgrounds, assuming you're not talking about catholic schools, there are private schools whose business model is the "5th year senior" - kids who are great athletes (mostly fb and bb), but need to get their grades up to gain admission. We used to call them "ringers." Now, we call them "rich." Anyway, I wonder how many of the furd roster's private school kids aren't really children of the "1%"?

---

Yep. Let's bring some facts to this discussion. Based on 2014 data, the average household income for a 1%er was $1.26 million/year. I suggest there are not too many of those on the Stanford football roster given the violent nature of the game. The Maverick McNealy's of the world go to Stanford to play golf.....

As this relates to recruiting, there is probably no more than one kid a year who fits the 1%er definition and is being actively recruited by Cal and Stanford.

Forget about them and focus on the non-1% kids who are being recruited by UO, UW and UCLA. Those are the ones who will change the fortunes (pun intended) of the Bears.

---

1. I think you are taking one percenter too literally

2. $425k gets you in the top 1 percent. The average figure is irrelevant, especially when you have billionaires and 100millionaires skewing the average income of the group.

---

The figure I cited is average household income. The $425K figure is based on average individual income (actually it is $465K). The individual income figure is skewed because it does not account for investment earnings, spousal earnings or income from other sources. A family earning a total of $425K or $465K is far short of the 1% group.

Note: I do agree that median would be a more accurate measurement than average.

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I think the key difference is socio-economics. It just isn't clear (and their roster reflects it - and so does ours) that Furd is a good fit for middle-class kids. Just go up to the farm and see all of the BMWs and Audis. Plus the lily white suburbia. If you have not been a middle class (or even upper-middle class kid) in a world of 1%'ers it really is both a culture shock and deeply alienating.

Again (I gotta save this paragraph someplace on my laptop for cut and pasting).....

A key advantage that Furd has is that it is one of the few P5 schools that appeals to the 1%'ers that play football. Look at their roster and how many of their kids graduate from private schools (and how few of ours do). This matters because as the gap between the P5 and the rest of the college football has left Furd (and to a small extent the Domers) in a unique position.

In many ways our recruiting battles are NOT with Furd. They are with UCLA and to an extent U of Washington - large publics located in an urban environment.


PS. USC has really become something of a strange bird. Under Steve Sample USC made such a huge push for affluent foreign students (and of course being located in Watts) that I don't even begin to know how to characterize the experience anymore.

PPS. a decent chunk of the 1%'ers that play football (and basketball) are the KIDS of pro athletes in the post Kurt Flood era.

---

I don't know about the "1%ers" assumption. How many of them are there and how many of their kids are that athletic, play football, let alone at a top level? Not that I have overlooked the bias in the 1%ers crack in the first place.

As to private school backgrounds, assuming you're not talking about catholic schools, there are private schools whose business model is the "5th year senior" - kids who are great athletes (mostly fb and bb), but need to get their grades up to gain admission. We used to call them "ringers." Now, we call them "rich." Anyway, I wonder how many of the furd roster's private school kids aren't really children of the "1%"?

---

Yep. Let's bring some facts to this discussion. Based on 2014 data, the average household income for a 1%er was $1.26 million/year. I suggest there are not too many of those on the Stanford football roster given the violent nature of the game. The Maverick McNealy's of the world go to Stanford to play golf.....

As this relates to recruiting, there is probably no more than one kid a year who fits the 1%er definition and is being actively recruited by Cal and Stanford.

Forget about them and focus on the non-1% kids who are being recruited by UO, UW and UCLA. Those are the ones who will change the fortunes (pun intended) of the Bears.

---

1. I think you are taking one percenter too literally

2. $425k gets you in the top 1 percent. The average figure is irrelevant, especially when you have billionaires and 100millionaires skewing the average income of the group.

---

Do you see what you did there? Discounted the responder as being too literal and then became literal yourself.

It's just a casual discussion.

Now, my view of Cal vs Stanfurd? Cal students work for everything they get. Stanfurd students find someone else to do the work for them. If they aren't used to doing that from their upbringing, they will be shown how to do it once they're in the university...on both sides.

71Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I think the key difference is socio-economics. It just isn't clear (and their roster reflects it - and so does ours) that Furd is a good fit for middle-class kids. Just go up to the farm and see all of the BMWs and Audis. Plus the lily white suburbia. If you have not been a middle class (or even upper-middle class kid) in a world of 1%'ers it really is both a culture shock and deeply alienating.

Again (I gotta save this paragraph someplace on my laptop for cut and pasting).....

A key advantage that Furd has is that it is one of the few P5 schools that appeals to the 1%'ers that play football. Look at their roster and how many of their kids graduate from private schools (and how few of ours do). This matters because as the gap between the P5 and the rest of the college football has left Furd (and to a small extent the Domers) in a unique position.

In many ways our recruiting battles are NOT with Furd. They are with UCLA and to an extent U of Washington - large publics located in an urban environment.


PS. USC has really become something of a strange bird. Under Steve Sample USC made such a huge push for affluent foreign students (and of course being located in Watts) that I don't even begin to know how to characterize the experience anymore.

PPS. a decent chunk of the 1%'ers that play football (and basketball) are the KIDS of pro athletes in the post Kurt Flood era.

---

I don't know about the "1%ers" assumption. How many of them are there and how many of their kids are that athletic, play football, let alone at a top level? Not that I have overlooked the bias in the 1%ers crack in the first place.

As to private school backgrounds, assuming you're not talking about catholic schools, there are private schools whose business model is the "5th year senior" - kids who are great athletes (mostly fb and bb), but need to get their grades up to gain admission. We used to call them "ringers." Now, we call them "rich." Anyway, I wonder how many of the furd roster's private school kids aren't really children of the "1%"?

---

Yep. Let's bring some facts to this discussion. Based on 2014 data, the average household income for a 1%er was $1.26 million/year. I suggest there are not too many of those on the Stanford football roster given the violent nature of the game. The Maverick McNealy's of the world go to Stanford to play golf.....

As this relates to recruiting, there is probably no more than one kid a year who fits the 1%er definition and is being actively recruited by Cal and Stanford.

Forget about them and focus on the non-1% kids who are being recruited by UO, UW and UCLA. Those are the ones who will change the fortunes (pun intended) of the Bears.

---

Yes, the 1% son of the CEO at my last company went to Stanford on a full fencing scholarship.

calumnus said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I think the key difference is socio-economics. It just isn't clear (and their roster reflects it - and so does ours) that Furd is a good fit for middle-class kids. Just go up to the farm and see all of the BMWs and Audis. Plus the lily white suburbia. If you have not been a middle class (or even upper-middle class kid) in a world of 1%'ers it really is both a culture shock and deeply alienating.

Again (I gotta save this paragraph someplace on my laptop for cut and pasting).....

A key advantage that Furd has is that it is one of the few P5 schools that appeals to the 1%'ers that play football. Look at their roster and how many of their kids graduate from private schools (and how few of ours do). This matters because as the gap between the P5 and the rest of the college football has left Furd (and to a small extent the Domers) in a unique position.

In many ways our recruiting battles are NOT with Furd. They are with UCLA and to an extent U of Washington - large publics located in an urban environment.


PS. USC has really become something of a strange bird. Under Steve Sample USC made such a huge push for affluent foreign students (and of course being located in Watts) that I don't even begin to know how to characterize the experience anymore.

PPS. a decent chunk of the 1%'ers that play football (and basketball) are the KIDS of pro athletes in the post Kurt Flood era.

---

I don't know about the "1%ers" assumption. How many of them are there and how many of their kids are that athletic, play football, let alone at a top level? Not that I have overlooked the bias in the 1%ers crack in the first place.

As to private school backgrounds, assuming you're not talking about catholic schools, there are private schools whose business model is the "5th year senior" - kids who are great athletes (mostly fb and bb), but need to get their grades up to gain admission. We used to call them "ringers." Now, we call them "rich." Anyway, I wonder how many of the furd roster's private school kids aren't really children of the "1%"?

---

Yep. Let's bring some facts to this discussion. Based on 2014 data, the average household income for a 1%er was $1.26 million/year. I suggest there are not too many of those on the Stanford football roster given the violent nature of the game. The Maverick McNealy's of the world go to Stanford to play golf.....

As this relates to recruiting, there is probably no more than one kid a year who fits the 1%er definition and is being actively recruited by Cal and Stanford.

Forget about them and focus on the non-1% kids who are being recruited by UO, UW and UCLA. Those are the ones who will change the fortunes (pun intended) of the Bears.

---

Yes, the 1% son of the CEO at my last company went to Stanford on a full fencing scholarship.

---

There are "need" scholarships, "merit" scholarships, and "athletic" scholarships. I would guess from you post that only the first is legit.

socaltownie said:

---

I think the key difference is socio-economics. It just isn't clear (and their roster reflects it - and so does ours) that Furd is a good fit for middle-class kids. Just go up to the farm and see all of the BMWs and Audis. Plus the lily white suburbia. If you have not been a middle class (or even upper-middle class kid) in a world of 1%'ers it really is both a culture shock and deeply alienating.

Again (I gotta save this paragraph someplace on my laptop for cut and pasting).....

A key advantage that Furd has is that it is one of the few P5 schools that appeals to the 1%'ers that play football. Look at their roster and how many of their kids graduate from private schools (and how few of ours do). This matters because as the gap between the P5 and the rest of the college football has left Furd (and to a small extent the Domers) in a unique position.

In many ways our recruiting battles are NOT with Furd. They are with UCLA and to an extent U of Washington - large publics located in an urban environment.


PS. USC has really become something of a strange bird. Under Steve Sample USC made such a huge push for affluent foreign students (and of course being located in Watts) that I don't even begin to know how to characterize the experience anymore.

PPS. a decent chunk of the 1%'ers that play football (and basketball) are the KIDS of pro athletes in the post Kurt Flood era.

---

It is laughable that 1% language is used to explain maybe the single best combination of academics and winning football getting recruits. Unless someone who is serious about academics REALLY dislikes the environment FURD should get every single recruit they want.

71Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I think the key difference is socio-economics. It just isn't clear (and their roster reflects it - and so does ours) that Furd is a good fit for middle-class kids. Just go up to the farm and see all of the BMWs and Audis. Plus the lily white suburbia. If you have not been a middle class (or even upper-middle class kid) in a world of 1%'ers it really is both a culture shock and deeply alienating.

Again (I gotta save this paragraph someplace on my laptop for cut and pasting).....

A key advantage that Furd has is that it is one of the few P5 schools that appeals to the 1%'ers that play football. Look at their roster and how many of their kids graduate from private schools (and how few of ours do). This matters because as the gap between the P5 and the rest of the college football has left Furd (and to a small extent the Domers) in a unique position.

In many ways our recruiting battles are NOT with Furd. They are with UCLA and to an extent U of Washington - large publics located in an urban environment.


PS. USC has really become something of a strange bird. Under Steve Sample USC made such a huge push for affluent foreign students (and of course being located in Watts) that I don't even begin to know how to characterize the experience anymore.

PPS. a decent chunk of the 1%'ers that play football (and basketball) are the KIDS of pro athletes in the post Kurt Flood era.

---

I don't know about the "1%ers" assumption. How many of them are there and how many of their kids are that athletic, play football, let alone at a top level? Not that I have overlooked the bias in the 1%ers crack in the first place.

As to private school backgrounds, assuming you're not talking about catholic schools, there are private schools whose business model is the "5th year senior" - kids who are great athletes (mostly fb and bb), but need to get their grades up to gain admission. We used to call them "ringers." Now, we call them "rich." Anyway, I wonder how many of the furd roster's private school kids aren't really children of the "1%"?

---

Yep. Let's bring some facts to this discussion. Based on 2014 data, the average household income for a 1%er was $1.26 million/year. I suggest there are not too many of those on the Stanford football roster given the violent nature of the game. The Maverick McNealy's of the world go to Stanford to play golf.....

As this relates to recruiting, there is probably no more than one kid a year who fits the 1%er definition and is being actively recruited by Cal and Stanford.

Forget about them and focus on the non-1% kids who are being recruited by UO, UW and UCLA. Those are the ones who will change the fortunes (pun intended) of the Bears.

---

Agree on the 1% unless your taking about football legacies (e.g., McCaffrey and Hogan cane from wealth families that had football tradition). I can name a few players from 1% families who were more special team players like Ukropina (his parents' house looks like a hotel). What really sticks out in the Furd roster is how few players ent to public schools, and of those who went to public schools, how few went to schools in middle class or poor areas.

But I think where SoCal was going is that upper middle class kids will lean to Furd. I bet there a lot of top 10% on the Furd team. As for Frud generally, there are a disproportionate number of 1%ers in the student body.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I think the key difference is socio-economics. It just isn't clear (and their roster reflects it - and so does ours) that Furd is a good fit for middle-class kids. Just go up to the farm and see all of the BMWs and Audis. Plus the lily white suburbia. If you have not been a middle class (or even upper-middle class kid) in a world of 1%'ers it really is both a culture shock and deeply alienating.

Again (I gotta save this paragraph someplace on my laptop for cut and pasting).....

A key advantage that Furd has is that it is one of the few P5 schools that appeals to the 1%'ers that play football. Look at their roster and how many of their kids graduate from private schools (and how few of ours do). This matters because as the gap between the P5 and the rest of the college football has left Furd (and to a small extent the Domers) in a unique position.

In many ways our recruiting battles are NOT with Furd. They are with UCLA and to an extent U of Washington - large publics located in an urban environment.


PS. USC has really become something of a strange bird. Under Steve Sample USC made such a huge push for affluent foreign students (and of course being located in Watts) that I don't even begin to know how to characterize the experience anymore.

PPS. a decent chunk of the 1%'ers that play football (and basketball) are the KIDS of pro athletes in the post Kurt Flood era.

---

Really interesting post. Cal' student body also trends towards upper middle class, but has more the millennial feel of liking urban areas such as the City. I can see where your going re: Furd. That if your a more conservative wealthy kid, and you have a suburban orientation, Furd is very attractive. And it seems this year that are lot more recruiting battles with Furd, but in past, more typically with the state schools, as you point out. I'm not sure where Chip and UCLA are going with such limited offers.

The SC experience is you send you child there to be a business major and get a good job. Over half the undergrads are business majors (and the rest tend to be STEM), and you buy top students with generous financial aide (the benefits of a large endowment). SC typically is rated in the top 5 schools for business recruiters. And those making the Taco Bell comments, don't have a clue about LA real estate. USC dominates the Figueroa corridor (it owns most of the property up to Convention Center/Staples), and has made massive changes. For millennials it is a hot area, or at least so I'm told. I know several Cal alums who have sucked it up because their kid wants the certainty of a business major that Cal can't provide. As an aside, living in SC land, there is a lot of *****ing about recruiting and that SC is unable to compete for more top players these days because the coaching staff is under pressure to recruit players who can matriculate in what now a more competitive school. My wife and I try not laugh.

Your last sentence is telling. My initial reaction was really (?) and then I started looking at Cal and Furd rosters. Good post.

Edit: a word that has a female dog in it (*****!ng) gets censored?

---

Uh, my Taco Bell reference was to the Palo Alto contingent, not U$C.

---

Not aimed at you. Lot of posters referring to SC as Taco Bell U due to its location.

wifeisafurd said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I think the key difference is socio-economics. It just isn't clear (and their roster reflects it - and so does ours) that Furd is a good fit for middle-class kids. Just go up to the farm and see all of the BMWs and Audis. Plus the lily white suburbia. If you have not been a middle class (or even upper-middle class kid) in a world of 1%'ers it really is both a culture shock and deeply alienating.

Again (I gotta save this paragraph someplace on my laptop for cut and pasting).....

A key advantage that Furd has is that it is one of the few P5 schools that appeals to the 1%'ers that play football. Look at their roster and how many of their kids graduate from private schools (and how few of ours do). This matters because as the gap between the P5 and the rest of the college football has left Furd (and to a small extent the Domers) in a unique position.

In many ways our recruiting battles are NOT with Furd. They are with UCLA and to an extent U of Washington - large publics located in an urban environment.


PS. USC has really become something of a strange bird. Under Steve Sample USC made such a huge push for affluent foreign students (and of course being located in Watts) that I don't even begin to know how to characterize the experience anymore.

PPS. a decent chunk of the 1%'ers that play football (and basketball) are the KIDS of pro athletes in the post Kurt Flood era.

---

Really interesting post. Cal' student body also trends towards upper middle class, but has more the millennial feel of liking urban areas such as the City. I can see where your going re: Furd. That if your a more conservative wealthy kid, and you have a suburban orientation, Furd is very attractive. And it seems this year that are lot more recruiting battles with Furd, but in past, more typically with the state schools, as you point out. I'm not sure where Chip and UCLA are going with such limited offers.

The SC experience is you send you child there to be a business major and get a good job. Over half the undergrads are business majors (and the rest tend to be STEM), and you buy top students with generous financial aide (the benefits of a large endowment). SC typically is rated in the top 5 schools for business recruiters. And those making the Taco Bell comments, don't have a clue about LA real estate. USC dominates the Figueroa corridor (it owns most of the property up to Convention Center/Staples), and has made massive changes. For millennials it is a hot area, or at least so I'm told. I know several Cal alums who have sucked it up because their kid wants the certainty of a business major that Cal can't provide. As an aside, living in SC land, there is a lot of *****ing about recruiting and that SC is unable to compete for more top players these days because the coaching staff is under pressure to recruit players who can matriculate in what now a more competitive school. My wife and I try not laugh.

Your last sentence is telling. My initial reaction was really (?) and then I started looking at Cal and Furd rosters. Good post.

Edit: a word that has a female dog in it (*****!ng) gets censored?

---

Uh, my Taco Bell reference was to the Palo Alto contingent, not U$C.

---

Not aimed at you. Lot of posters referring to SC as Taco Bell U due to its location.

---

Haha. Having grown up in Menlo Park I always saw it as a parallel art form in architecture

ColoradoBear said:

---

Who is Austin Jones?

---

A young fellow who decided to join the Dark Side. Condolences to his family.

Memorial has fake grass. What does Furd have?

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

What exactly is the "Cal Way"?

Serious question.

---

socaltownie in the next post did a good job of answering, but I would say a more urban setting, less Taco Bell to start---and most all that it implies. A gated community in the OC ('furd) vs. downtown SF or LA. But then I think you really knew and didn't need any of this.

---

Think of a he difference of the campuses.
Cal=set in the middle of urban city of Berkeley with separate campus "just across the street" with eclectic building architecture

Furd: set apart from almost suburban city of Palo Alto with very homogeneous (not that there is anything wrong with that) architecture in more of a park like setting.

Cal student: large and extremely diverse in all aspects: income, background, race, religion, politics, etc.

Furd: smaller with more homogeneous (ditto) student body from upper income bracket.

Cal approach: question authority, think for your self but don't think only of yourself and don't be afraid to kick up a little sh*t.

Furd: not-Cal.

concordtom said:

---

Memorial has fake grass. What does Furd have?

---

One has to wonder if Cal's fake surface -- which negatively impacts the fan game day experience -- has a material impact on recruits' school decisions versus schools like Stanfurd that have natural grass. Certainly, it must have some impact.

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Memorial has fake grass. What does Furd have?

---

One has to wonder if Cal's fake surface -- which negatively impacts the fan game day experience -- has a material impact on recruits' school decisions versus schools like Stanfurd that have natural grass. Certainly, it must have some impact.

---

Doesn't seem to have slowed down UO or UW... In other words, no, I don't think the surface of the field makes any difference at all.

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Memorial has fake grass. What does Furd have?

---

One has to wonder if Cal's fake surface -- which negatively impacts the fan game day experience -- has a material impact on recruits' school decisions versus schools like Stanfurd that have natural grass. Certainly, it must have some impact.

---

I doubt surface composition is even thought about by HS kids. Many HS fields are artificial these days.

How does the surface of the field "negatively impact the fan game day experience"?